Difference between revisions of "PCD PC 2011-03-30 Webex"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Participants: begin entering discussion summary)
(→‎Discussion: complete entries)
Line 58: Line 58:
 
| '''Status/Discussion:'''
 
| '''Status/Discussion:'''
 
'''Decisions/Issues:'''
 
'''Decisions/Issues:'''
:* Agenda approved '''placeholder'''
+
:* Agenda approved  
 
'''Action(s):'''
 
'''Action(s):'''
  
Line 65: Line 65:
 
| '''Discussion Summary or Approval of Minutes''' <br>- Chair
 
| '''Discussion Summary or Approval of Minutes''' <br>- Chair
 
| '''Status/Discussion:'''  
 
| '''Status/Discussion:'''  
:* Discussion Summary of previous meeting was accepted '''placeholder'''
+
:* Discussion Summary of previous meeting was accepted with change to item 3 bullet 4 - Steve referred to an existing page.
 
'''Decisions/Issues:'''
 
'''Decisions/Issues:'''
 
:*  
 
:*  
Line 72: Line 72:
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 3
 
| align="center" | 3
| '''xxx''' <br>- yyy
+
| '''ONC Meetings Monday''' <br>- As Noted
 
| '''Status/Discussion:'''
 
| '''Status/Discussion:'''
:*
+
3. ONC Meeting:
 +
:- Steve summarized PCD participation in the hearing: speakers included Elliot, Todd, John Garguilo, John Zaleski, Dale Wiggins, Charles Parisot, and Paul was present in the audience.
 +
:- John Garguilo: presentations regarding PCD provided a unified picture from various positions. Testimony included the need for, and availability of common terminology. There was discussion of timeline, with request that IHE PCD use cases and Continua’s use cases need to be included soon and this requires motivation by strong requirements. ONC has the responsibility to balance costs which may slow the issuance of early deadlines.
 +
:- Khalid noted that some suggested that telehealth be treated differently.
 +
:- Paul added that about a third of the presenters mentioned PCD. He referred to Elliot’s emailed summary, agreeing that the actual decisions are made at a higher level than the panels. He referred to John Halamka’s blog that mentioned the need for end to end connectivity. Paul noted that gateways are required for a number of years because most devices can only support one protocol, but gateways can support multiple ones.
 +
:- Todd observed that most panelists read the testimony submitted in advance. He noted that Charles’ presentation describing the need for intermediaries for medical devices. The Rosetta project was a central item. Elliot and Charles encouraged some Stage 2 requirements, if only pilot projects, to get the ball rolling. Devices will be included in Stage 3. The morning perspective was largely from a point of view indicating that standards and products will not be available for some time, while the afternoon where presenters indicated that interoperable systems are now available. UDI is projected to be required in 2017, but this is still an issue, but not a significant item for PCD. Todd talked with Elliot about the need for significant marketing – PCD accomplishments are not well known.
 +
:- Paul added that the RTM nomenclature is a key to forward movement, avoiding pressure to include all of SNOMED or other nomenclature, while including a subset as required. Security did not appear to be of high interest in general, but a knowledgeable Kaiser representative was clearly concerned. Paul indicated the need for a minimal level that will permit implementation.
 +
:- Steve noted that impetus for the meeting started with consumers seeking interoperable bedside monitors while PCD has the solution.
 +
:- Paul noted that data quality will need to be addressed and PCD will need to include clinicians and EMR participation. It is not reasonable to ask the clinician to validate all data. John Garguilo added that intermediary business rules can be applied to this issue. Paul noted that there are different levels of validation, e.g., machine algorithms vs. clinician visual review.
 +
:- Todd suggested that quality and precision can be identified in the EMR and that a publication would be worthwhile. Khalil suggested that the clinician’s role and the clinician’s interface need to be discussed.
 +
:- Steve noted that users need financial incentives in Stage 2 in order to move forward. Paul indicated that PCD has been piloting this effort. Steve suggested seeking grant funds. Todd noted that the discrepancy between morning and afternoon presentations confused this. Steve and Paul noted that Continua’s remote monitoring effort was better understood than PCD’s. Todd agreed, noting that PCD has substantial technical development, but this is not well understood. Christel was asked if HIMSS can help get the word out. Christel suggested that PCD develop a PCD 101 that can be used to educate clinicians. Erin noted that the User Handbook assumes prior knowledge. Christel offered to work with Erin to develop a short document. Erin will review her presentations and share them with Christel for her review.
 +
:- Jon and Christel will seek to include clinical informatics people. This could be discussed at the F2F. Erin noted that discussion with clinicians in an AAMI committee meeting revealed they are not aware of the existence of standards. Todd indicated that the need to educate clinicians is broader than PCD and thought leaders need to be sought. Christel identified some HIMSS clinical thought leaders and suggested that reference material will be helpful.
  
'''Decisions/Issues:'''
+
6. F2F Agenda: Tuesday will be for the PC. Jon mentioned his discussions with Christel regarding involving clinical informatics professionals and asked that this recruiting effort be on the agenda.  Christel offered to include a short PCD description and short survey to her next monthly communication to HIMSS Clinical Informatics members. Manny will develop the survey. John Rhoads established a page to add suggestions for the agenda. There is a link from the F2F meeting’s Wiki page.
  
'''Action(s):'''
+
4. Technical documentation deadline: New Supplements will need to be ready for public comments by the end of May in order to have these final for registration in August. Existing Supplements and TFs can be addressed via CPs if necessary, allowing for a later deadline.
 
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 4
 
| '''AAMI-Mini Showcase''' <br>- Manny
 
| '''Status/Discussion:'''
 
:*
 
  
 
'''Decisions/Issues:'''
 
'''Decisions/Issues:'''
  
 
'''Action(s):'''
 
'''Action(s):'''
 
+
: Manny will develop a survey of clinical informatics professionals for Christel to distribute.
 
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
| align="center" | 5
+
| align="center" | 4
| '''yyy''' <br>-  
+
| '''Other''' <br>- Manny
 
 
 
| '''Status/Discussion:'''
 
| '''Status/Discussion:'''
:*
+
: All other items deferred.
 
 
'''Decisions/Issues:'''
 
:*
 
'''Action(s):'''
 
:*
 
 
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 6
 
| '''Action Items''' <br>- Chairs
 
| '''Status/Discussion:'''
 
:*
 
'''Decisions/Issues:'''
 
 
 
'''Action(s):'''
 
 
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 7
 
| '''Announcements''' <br>- All
 
| '''Status/Discussion:'''
 
:*
 
  
 
'''Decisions/Issues:'''
 
'''Decisions/Issues:'''
  
 
'''Action(s):'''
 
'''Action(s):'''
:*
 
  
|-
 
| align="center" | 8
 
| '''xyz''' <br>-
 
| '''Status/Discussion:'''
 
:*
 
 
'''Decisions/Issues:'''
 
 
'''Action(s):'''
 
  
  

Revision as of 19:18, 30 March 2011

Patient Care Device Domain

Meeting Purpose

PC Regularly Scheduled Meeting

WebEx Information

Topic: PCD Planning Committee

Regularly Scheduled Meeting Time

Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Time: 11:00 am, Eastern Time (New York)

Duration: 60 Minutes

Proposed Agenda

1. Agenda Approval
2. Review Discussion Summaries: Planning Committee March 16 PCD PC 2011-03-16 Webex
3. ONC Meeting
  1. Testimony is found at http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=1479&&PageID=17133&mode=2&in_hi_userid=11673&cached=true; note that corections and updates will follow later because these were submitted the week before the meeting
4. Brief and Detailed Profile Proposal, TF and WP Updates
  1. TF update
  2. Timetable/Deadlines
5. Roadmap Update
6. F2F
7. ONC Meeting
8. AAMI Mini-Showcase
9. Action Item Review
10. Next and Recent Meetings
11. Additional Business
12. Next Meetings

Action Items from Previous Meetings

See PCD Planning Committee Action Items.

Significant changes, other than dates, will be in bold.

Participants

Chair: Steve Merritt
Christel Anderson, Jon Blasingame, Sam Carello, Todd Cooper, Bikram Day, Al Engelbert, Robert Flanders, Ken Fuchs, John Garguilo, Sarah Hopkins, Khalil Maalouf, Sandra Martinez, Steve Merritt, Monroe Pattillo, John Rhoads, Jeff Rinda, Paul Schluter, Erin Sparnon, Khalid Zubaidi, Manny Furst

Discussion

Discussion Summaries do not require formal approval, while minutes of meetings where votes are taken do. Participants are encouraged to review and bring up significant issues with discussion summaries of previous meetings. Votes will be taken to approve meetings where votes took place; these may be email ballots.

Item Topic Discussion
1 Introductions & Agenda Review
- Chair
Status/Discussion:

Decisions/Issues:

  • Agenda approved

Action(s):

2 Discussion Summary or Approval of Minutes
- Chair
Status/Discussion:
  • Discussion Summary of previous meeting was accepted with change to item 3 bullet 4 - Steve referred to an existing page.

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

3 ONC Meetings Monday
- As Noted
Status/Discussion:

3. ONC Meeting:

- Steve summarized PCD participation in the hearing: speakers included Elliot, Todd, John Garguilo, John Zaleski, Dale Wiggins, Charles Parisot, and Paul was present in the audience.
- John Garguilo: presentations regarding PCD provided a unified picture from various positions. Testimony included the need for, and availability of common terminology. There was discussion of timeline, with request that IHE PCD use cases and Continua’s use cases need to be included soon and this requires motivation by strong requirements. ONC has the responsibility to balance costs which may slow the issuance of early deadlines.
- Khalid noted that some suggested that telehealth be treated differently.
- Paul added that about a third of the presenters mentioned PCD. He referred to Elliot’s emailed summary, agreeing that the actual decisions are made at a higher level than the panels. He referred to John Halamka’s blog that mentioned the need for end to end connectivity. Paul noted that gateways are required for a number of years because most devices can only support one protocol, but gateways can support multiple ones.
- Todd observed that most panelists read the testimony submitted in advance. He noted that Charles’ presentation describing the need for intermediaries for medical devices. The Rosetta project was a central item. Elliot and Charles encouraged some Stage 2 requirements, if only pilot projects, to get the ball rolling. Devices will be included in Stage 3. The morning perspective was largely from a point of view indicating that standards and products will not be available for some time, while the afternoon where presenters indicated that interoperable systems are now available. UDI is projected to be required in 2017, but this is still an issue, but not a significant item for PCD. Todd talked with Elliot about the need for significant marketing – PCD accomplishments are not well known.
- Paul added that the RTM nomenclature is a key to forward movement, avoiding pressure to include all of SNOMED or other nomenclature, while including a subset as required. Security did not appear to be of high interest in general, but a knowledgeable Kaiser representative was clearly concerned. Paul indicated the need for a minimal level that will permit implementation.
- Steve noted that impetus for the meeting started with consumers seeking interoperable bedside monitors while PCD has the solution.
- Paul noted that data quality will need to be addressed and PCD will need to include clinicians and EMR participation. It is not reasonable to ask the clinician to validate all data. John Garguilo added that intermediary business rules can be applied to this issue. Paul noted that there are different levels of validation, e.g., machine algorithms vs. clinician visual review.
- Todd suggested that quality and precision can be identified in the EMR and that a publication would be worthwhile. Khalil suggested that the clinician’s role and the clinician’s interface need to be discussed.
- Steve noted that users need financial incentives in Stage 2 in order to move forward. Paul indicated that PCD has been piloting this effort. Steve suggested seeking grant funds. Todd noted that the discrepancy between morning and afternoon presentations confused this. Steve and Paul noted that Continua’s remote monitoring effort was better understood than PCD’s. Todd agreed, noting that PCD has substantial technical development, but this is not well understood. Christel was asked if HIMSS can help get the word out. Christel suggested that PCD develop a PCD 101 that can be used to educate clinicians. Erin noted that the User Handbook assumes prior knowledge. Christel offered to work with Erin to develop a short document. Erin will review her presentations and share them with Christel for her review.
- Jon and Christel will seek to include clinical informatics people. This could be discussed at the F2F. Erin noted that discussion with clinicians in an AAMI committee meeting revealed they are not aware of the existence of standards. Todd indicated that the need to educate clinicians is broader than PCD and thought leaders need to be sought. Christel identified some HIMSS clinical thought leaders and suggested that reference material will be helpful.

6. F2F Agenda: Tuesday will be for the PC. Jon mentioned his discussions with Christel regarding involving clinical informatics professionals and asked that this recruiting effort be on the agenda. Christel offered to include a short PCD description and short survey to her next monthly communication to HIMSS Clinical Informatics members. Manny will develop the survey. John Rhoads established a page to add suggestions for the agenda. There is a link from the F2F meeting’s Wiki page.

4. Technical documentation deadline: New Supplements will need to be ready for public comments by the end of May in order to have these final for registration in August. Existing Supplements and TFs can be addressed via CPs if necessary, allowing for a later deadline.

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

Manny will develop a survey of clinical informatics professionals for Christel to distribute.
4 Other
- Manny
Status/Discussion:
All other items deferred.

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):


Next Meeting

The next meetings are:

TC April 6, 2011 PCD TC 2011-04-06 Webex

PC April 13, 2011 PCD PC 2011-04-13 Webex

PCD Home